dykeulous - Tumblr blog

[dykeulous]

why am i in opposition with anarchism?

abolition of the state is not a process that occurs overnight, it is not a push of a button that will abolish the state and create communism at the same moment. on the contrary, building socialism is a difficult, long-lasting and painstaking process accompanied by numerous successes and failures. every attempt to build socialism started in backward, mostly feudal countries of the second and third world. russia was a semi-feudal poorest country in europe, china was a colony destroyed by civil war and imperialism, vietnam too; cuba, algeria and libya were severely economically exploited by the imperialist masters. those socialist countries were exposed to international isolation, embargoes, attempts at sabotage and destabilization, and in the worst case they were attacked (operation barbarossa on the ussr, invasions of korea and vietnam, the bay of pigs in cuba...). the construction of the army, police and secret services was necessary to preserve the revolution and socialism. even the anarchists in ukraine & spain had their army, police and secret services, just as today the anarchists in rojava have their army, police, anti-terrorist units and secret service.

for this reason, the communists used capitalism to a lesser extent as a transition from a feudal to a socialist society; nep in russia under lenin, new democracy under mao & reforms under xiaoping in china. everyone knows that socialism comes from a post-capitalist society, and how to create socialism without capitalism? do anarchists really think that communists in russia, china or any other country did not spend thousands of meetings, debates and arguments to choose the right path for the development of socialism? those communists chose what they thought was best at the given moment.

let’s take the example of china, where the communists came to power in 1949. china was then a feudal country, only 15% of the population was literate, slavery was still practiced, people lit fires by beating stone against stone, what little industry and infrastructure there was was destroyed in ww2 and later in the civil war. building socialism was impossible, there was simply no factory. what did the communists in china do about it? they used capitalism to strengthen the economy, raise living standards & improve the living conditions of workers.

in less than 30 years, the PRC lifted 800 million people out of extreme poverty (especially the rural population). did the zapatistas achieve communism? their revolution has been going on for more than 30 years, so they didn’t become a classless society overnight. in their society, they have classes, private property, markets & trade with the outside capitalist world. the same thing is with rojava, which has all of the above. one of the few “successful” anarchist movements have come up with problems that communists have faced for a long time. i will repeat again: for everything that anarchists accuse the ussr, china & other socialist countries, the same can be applied to “successful” anarchist revolutions.

we communists must be practical, we must learn from our mistakes and correct them. we must not blindly follow dogmatism.

[dykeulous]

This doesn't mean that there is no value at all in reforms. But it does mean that the benefits of reforms are fragile and can be reversed at any point because the fundamental power structures of class society are still the same.

You can earn as many rights as you want, as long as class society exists they are in the hands of the capitalist ruling class and can be taken away at any moment.

Read "Reform or Revolution" by Rosa Luxemburg for more on this topic. You can read it for free in the Marxists Internet Archive

[dykeulous]

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance." - Karl Marx, The German Ideology

[dykeulous]

they did not give us shit. we fought, and we continue to fight, because women’s liberation is yet to be achieved.

Historian and Feminist Scholar Gerda Lerner

[dykeulous]

i wish i could learn more about north koreans/north korean culture & traditions without the fucking western propaganda lurking in every corner with its racist bullshit. i 💗 north korea & its people and no cries for apparent terror from western faces will make me hate it. juche is not the best system, not a good one either, far from it. but when amerikkka and other western powers keep threatening you, how can you organize & build a good system?

[dykeulous]

I do not believe the soviet union was imperialist in nature (such a thing is absurd, imperialism being a stage of capitalism, soviet revisionism nonwithstanding). However, I do believe the soviet union held an incorrect and commandist national policy, which both: weakened the socialist camp through creation of dependent polities; and led to errors and excesses which contributed to national strife.

[dykeulous]

israel is a colonialist puppet state. zionism does not help jewish liberation. the land had plants, agriculture and people prior to the entrance of colonists. it was not pure havoc, waiting the jewish inhabitants to inhabit it. anyone who supports “2-state” solution is no better than those who support israel. palestine deserves full freedom, not half of it, not two thirds of it, full liberation. israel is a jewish state, and a state cannot be “fair” if it is not secular. theocracy could never be fair.

i, as a feminist, have full duty to be actively & vocally pro-palestine. it is absolutely a situation regarding female rights. whenever there is genocide, war, or imperialism (situation in palestine could never be called a war; the horrors mere civilians endured by the hands of a whole horde of an army for over seventy years could never be called a war)– there is a disproportionate expansion of sex trade, sex-based violence & unique wars against women. western feminists have not only been staying silent about the active genocide, but also claiming how it has nothing to do with women’s liberation or feminism, at all. palestinian women & girls often have to take pills to stop their menstrual bleedings because of lack of resources, they are having their fetuses pulled out of their dead bodies (often resulting in failure), having c-sections without any sort of anesthesia at all, daily losing their families, watching their schools being bombed, and the list goes on. this is not even nearly half of what palestinian women & girls have to face on the daily basis, and no one could ever capture all the terror, trauma, violence & torment they are subjected to in a simple paragraph. watching western feminists blindly ignore all of this makes me wonder why so many people use feminism as a label and as a quirky nickname. if you aren’t willing to speak up about the thousands of hundreds of poor palestinian women & girls, and female infants, facing abhorrent & vehement violence, can you truly call yourself a feminist? does your feminism stop at girl-boss liberalism, does your activism stop at watching the barbie movie?

by choosing to support, or turn a blind eye to israeli imperialism, you are choosing to support the genocide against women, girls, and homosexuals you so much claim to protect. israeli soldiers are imperializing the bodies of palestinian women & girls, just like they are imperializing the palestinian land.

palestinian feminists were one of the first feminists of the arabic world, many of them died fighting against imperialism. in 1929, palestinian women formed an all-women’s congress in jerusalem. these women were one of the firsts to publicly speak up on the state of palestinian farmers, british colonialism & the way it exploited agriculture. palestinian feminists are dignified women of the arabic world, and we all owe them support for their strength, bravery, dignity & belligerence. they are fighting daily for their homeland in impossible & unimaginable conditions. refusing to advocate for these women makes you not merely a bad feminist, but also a supporter of genocide, imperialism & apartheid.

🇵🇸 from the river to the sea, 🇵🇸

PALESTINE WILL BE FREE. 🇵🇸

[dykeulous]

patriotism ≠ nationalism ≠ chauvinism. please, please go read mao. communists who scream how patriotism is inherently harmful and chauvinistic and whatnot clearly haven’t read communist theory. sure, as communists, we are against the state, we are for abolishing it, we are for proletarian internationalism. however, it’s super ignorant to ignore the important usage of patriotism & love for one’s country during the revolution. no one will convince me that the love i have for the proletarians of my country, and overall the love i have for all proletarians of slavic descent is somehow racist, chauvinistic, and hateful. i do love the international proletariat. i never claimed to exclude or wish harm to a non-slavic proletariat. i also despise my country’s insane racism, clero-fascist ideals, anti-woman ideologies, homophobic beliefs, chauvinism against other slavic countries & overall the competitive capitalistic system my country has. i can hate all of that, and still be proud of (some) my country’s history. i still can have a special love for it’s people.

in order to love the international proletariat, one first has to love their own people. and to love their own people, one has to be anti-capitalist.

[dykeulous]

where u from I can see slavic patriot on your about me just curious

i am from croatia

[dykeulous]

the genitalia itself is not socially constructed, the forced traits are. the characteristics that fill the pink & the blue box are, and we must destroy those boxes, and create one simple box; one with no specific characteristics, one that clearly states: I Am Human.

sex (for a lack of a better term, i’m not referring to intercourse here) holds a lot of patriarchal significance, that is because of sex categorization, not because of sex itself. once we abolish gender, the alienation of workers will be less prevailing, as well, because gender will no longer be established to further the alienation of female & male proletarians.

how will this affect sexuality? in a post-gender society, orientational labels would cease existing. they are only useful & important under a patriarchal society. in a post-gender society, all sexualities & relationships would be deemed equal & would have the same value. it would just be people having romantic and sexual relationships with other people. heteronormativity would no longer be infecting society as a whole, thus no one would ever have to disclose their orientational label to anybody– because labels would no longer be useful, nor would they be important.

(i’m saying all this as someone who’s biggest part of identity is being lesbian)

[dykeulous]

okay i’m gonna ask everyone to go follow @butch-reidentified , she is the best blogger i have found on here yet & i appreciate her so much 🫶 she’s like a big sister to me honestly.

[dykeulous]

okay i’m not fishing for notes but guys please read this. i want to know you guys’ ideas about this & the redemption of porn. it is a very important topic when talking about female liberation, and i really want more of you to go read it.

one of the vilest inventions of the patriarchy was pornography itself. pornography was made by & for men. for male pleasure, male satisfaction, male consumption– at the expense of women. pornography is discrimination based on sex. the woman is presented as a simple sex toy, an object for male pleasure, a sex statue. the context in which pornography is created is inherently oppressive, as it portrays women in a highly dehumanizing, degrading, humiliating and non-human way. it provides content of women bleeding out, being beaten up, choked, slapped, peed on, cut up; bruised, whipped, wounded, straight up brutalized & violated. all the while turning this content into something sexual, into something the male consumers can jack off to. this is by every definition discrimination. prostitution & pornography are both institutions that sell female bodies for male consumption– and while i’m not denying the fact that there are males that are also exploited under this industry (mostly also for male consumption), it is mostly constituted of female people. and the context in which they perform is a degrading & humiliating feminine context. pornography will remain a fascist, anti-woman institution, all until patriarchal values are completely sucked out of our society. a redemption of porn can only happen under certain circumstances that are:

women gain economic, social, political, sexual, domestic & financial liberty

capitalism is fought, and the collective masses work for a classless system

gender no longer exists

heterosexism is extinguished, and so is heterosexuality as an oppressive tool (not the sexuality)

a redemption of porn cannot happen until a redemption of the society as a whole does not. porn can redeem itself only when sex stops being bought & sold, only when prostitution stops being needed, only when women are free from both men & from the cage of “woman” itself, only when the patriarchy is fully gone, along with its comrade system– capitalism.

[dykeulous]

i believe separatism to be a movement with the right ideas in mind, however i do not believe it is the best solution out there. i am completely in support of the 4B movement, i understand that female separatism improves female longevity, health, and safety, however, if we are resorting to simple boycott, we won’t be able to fully pull from the root.

i believe marxism to be crucial in feminist politics, and while i believe that the patriarchy & sexism are world’s oldest forms of oppression, i also believe class to be. i believe that, under a capitalistic society, a woman has more in common with a man of her class than with a woman of another class. that being said, proletarian women should not look for safety, protection & sisterhood in bourgeois women. nor should proletarian women be looking into liberal feminism, as it is a capitalistic tool of further consumerism & marginalization of working-class women. bourgeois women are not feminist icons, they brace an anti-feminist system, and they are bourgeois male’s biggest supporters. they are no better than them.

without marxism, female revolution would be impossible. without feminism, proletarian revolution would be impossible. perhaps they would be possible; but without marxism, a “successful” female revolution would result in another class-based society, and without feminism, proletarian revolution would result in a sexist, non-class based society (untrue as well, since oppression of women is technically class-based; as i perceive the category of “woman” & category of “man” to be classes within the “primary” classes). as activists, we are looking to remove any & all forms of oppression, and that cannot be done without a proletarian, feminist revolution.

the revolutionary potential of humankind must include people of both sexes, all races, all ethnicities, and all sexualities. that is true marxism. to take down the capitalistic system, the female proletariat cannot ignore her male comrade. this is not to say that male proletarians are innocent, helpless victims. they are still proletarian women’s oppressors. they still can, and often do, harm & backstab proletarian women. this is why proper re-education programs, an end of socialization, removing of gender, rehabilitation centers & an arming of proletarian women all play a big role. while stripping the capitalists of their power, we have to pay special attention to the female proletariat & her liberation, and after stripping the capitalists of their power, we need to remove any leftovers of sexism there are. it will not be a quick process. it will require hard work & much more than just a willing attitude from both sexes. this does not mean women will be doing all the work, nor does it mean women will have to plead with men to cooperate. if women’s kindness, willing attitude & non-violent pleas ever worked, history would not look like it does, and female liberation would already have been achieved. we cannot nicely ask our oppressors to stop oppressing us. just like we cannot nicely strip the capitalists of their power without a revolution, similarly women cannot nicely strip the men of their power without a revolution. safety, protection & sisterhood of & between proletarian women will be crucial.

so, while i believe separatism is a good temporary tactic, it could never be endgame. it could never be the solution. female separatism is a class-based tactic that is only sustainable under a class-based system, the kind of system we are looking to destroy. feminism cannot co-exist with capitalism.

[dykeulous]

I notice articles of Radfems' teaming up with conservatives to curb trans activists. I thought radfems are left-leaning. Why do radfems team up with the right wingers if that's the case?

This is going to be long but contain a lot of very important information people need to understand about the radfem perspective on gender compared to both the conservative one and the genderist one.

I don't personally know any radfem who would ever do this so the simple answer is I can't tell you why someone would bc I've never even witnessed it, let alone gotten to ask their reasoning. People who call themselves gender critical and get called TERF aren't necessarily radfems. Radical feminism is by definition a left wing ideology. If you were active on radblr, you would see frequent posts calling out conservative women who try to act all buddy-buddy with radfems re: trans stuff. We on radblr do not tolerate that or their presence - at least not in the corner of radblr where I exist. I block right wing blogs on sight.

Contrary to popular trans belief, we don't agree with conservatives on trans matters either. Where conservatives want to reinforce gender, maintain the existence of gender, and are bioessentialist (a term genderists use incorrectly btw*) by nature of their predominantly Christian beliefs, radfems are gender atheists and abolitionists.

*Bioessentialism doesn't mean "vagina = woman, penis = man." It refers to the belief that women (aka female humans) are genetically/inherently nurturing, caregivers, emotional, sensitive, intuitive, quiet, physically weak, like pink and princesses and flowery dresses, etc., and that men are genetically/inherently strong, resilient, tough, outdoorsy, aggressive/violent, stoic, rational, leaders, like trucks and mud and red meat, etc.

While bioessentialism is the belief that all these stereotypes are innate, these stereotypes themselves are what make up gender. "Gender stereotypes" and "Gender roles" are redundant phrases. Gender *is* just stereotypes based on sex. Male aka "amab" people are expected to adhere to the truck-loving, tough, aggressive, stereotypes mentioned above. Those stereotypes are placed based on their physical body - the male body - not placed on them because of their INTERNAL "gender identity." For proof, look no further than the baby gifts an expecting mother receives after finding out the sex of her unborn child: they are not random, gender-neutral gifts, they're blue pajamas with dinosaurs on them because boy.

Radfems want to eliminate gender. We view sex as a neutral biological fact, like your height, foot width, or hair or eye color.

Imagine if, before a baby is born, doctors tested its future hair color, and that information was believed to determine everything about the child. Oh, it's a brunette! So it will be opinionated, love playing with building blocks, enjoy science, and its favorite color will be green! Oh, a blond? Well, better get it yellow EVERYTHING covered in butterflies, and order some craft supplies (blonds are just naturally more creative than brunettes, of course). Be prepared... blonds are soft and sensitive and moody. They're very artistic but struggle to keep up in math and science classes, and are so indecisive!

This is what gender is. A massive, all-encompassing set of traits that are assigned to one sex or the other, designed explicitly by patriarchy to maintain the oppression of the female sex. It defines everything, starting with how people treat you before you're even born, including who you will be expected to be all your life forever, up to what jobs you're likely to get and how much you'll be paid. Society has decided that which type of gametes your body is designed to produce (whether or not you successfully produce them is utterly irrelevant to what your body is DESIGNED genetically to do) determines every last thing about your life. There's a stronger argument for astrology than gender.

So conservatives want to perpetuate gender, keep males doing all those things I listed (which we call "masculinity") and females doing all those things I listed (often called "femininity"). Radfems want gender gone. We want your sex to be no more relevant to your life than your height or hair color. We believe that regardless of whether your body is structured to produce large gametes or small ones says absolutely fucking nothing about who you are, what you are capable of, your likes or dislikes, your intelligence, or anything else.

So, no. I would sooner die than team up with conservatives. We have nothing in common. You are by definition NOT radical feminist if you support gender and will team up with those who do, just to ~own the trains~. That isn't a no true Scotsman, it's just how definitions work.

I am not against trans people. I am 100% in favor of safety and protection for trans people. I simply don't view gender the same way many trans people (specifically those we call genderists or TRAs) do. I don't believe in an internal gender identity any more than I believe in an internal hair color identity. I do, however, believe in EVERY human's fundamental rights to bodily autonomy, healthcare, self-expression, non-discrimination, etc. I believe clothes and toys and hobbies and occupations and likes and dislikes and skills and weaknesses all have zero to do with your sex.

This is my struggle with gender identity ideology: nobody has been able to answer the most fundamental defining question I have about it. If, as many trans activists claim, their gender identity has nothing to do with clothing, nothing to do with haircut, nothing to do with being hairy vs shaven, nothing to do with personality traits, nothing to do with likes and dislikes, nothing to do with whether you prefer dolls or hotwheels, nothing to do with all those stereotypes I mentioned... but it's also not simply a descriptor for one's sex, what is left? What remains to give gender meaning? What is a boy/man or girl/woman? Without referencing any sex stereotypes or sexed body parts, how do you know which one you are?

If anyone could give me a genuine, logical answer to this, an explanation for gender identity that has nothing to do with sex stereotypes and makes concrete sense, on God I would become the biggest TRA on earth.

Because I don't believe that gender is anything more than sexist stereotypes, the idea of gender identity is incompatible with my values. Because I view sex as a simple biological fact which should be as neutral as hair color, I don't think it makes sense to believe one can fully and truly change sex. If you dye your hair blond, the roots will still grow in the original brown color determined by your genetics. You may be able to appear as a blond and convince some people you are naturally blond, but it doesn't *actually* change the reality.

I believe there are people with physical sex dysphoria, like myself and my best friend, for whom medical transition is in many cases beneficial (it was for me) in alleviating those odd "phantom sex characteristic," very neurological-seeming symptoms. But while having a double mastectomy did help the sensations, it didn't turn me into a male human (man), and I have certainly never wanted to be one. My best friend lives a life where everyone perceives her to be female, though she was born male, simply because the medical process she went through to alleviate those neurological sensations resulted in people perceiving her as female (passing). Her "social transition" was not intentional or gender related, just an incidental byproduct of the medical one. It was simply easier, and probably safer, to assimilate into social womanhood than to tell everyone she's actually male despite appearing female, though she still does not have a gender identity, does not wear makeup or skirts or perform femininity, and couldn't care less about pronouns - I use "she" because that's how my brain naturally perceives her. Outside of this concrete, material, neurologically plausible view of sex dysphoria (which still has nothing inherently related to *gender* about it), I don't understand what it means to be trans.

Radfems want both sexes to be utterly free to be whoever they are, without being influenced/socialized into gendered (aka sex-stereotypical) behaviors and preferences. We want males comfortable & safe wearing flowery sundresses and crying often and being homemakers if they wish, and females under zero societal pressure to shave, wear makeup, etc., and totally free to speak their minds and wear cargo shorts without so much as a sideways glance. Conservatives want males to be "masculine" and females to be "feminine," whereas we want "masculine" and "feminine" to be as absurd concepts as "blondian" and "brunettian" sound. Fundamentally, radfems & conservatives exist in opposition.

Anyone who has an issue with trans people, and for whom that issue is so important they'll team up with conservatives just to fight the trans movement, has utterly lost sight of the goal of feminism (if they were feminist to begin with), which is female liberation. Radfems believe gender abolition is a crucial step toward female liberation; working with people who want to enforce gender such as conservatives would be working against our own interests.

I've been on radblr a few years and never seen anyone team up with conservatives. Whoever you've heard about in the news, idk who they are, but I fully condemn cooperation with the right wing and assure you that is not something your standard radfem will tolerate. Much like how most trans people feel about Caitlyn Jenner.

[dykeulous]

[dykeulous]

the thing we all need to say loudly and more often is that not only did women always work throughout history, but the kinds of work they had to engage in were often longer-lasting, harder, more boring, more emotionally taxing, more fundamentally necessary for continued survival, and above all, they did the majority of it. the majority of work in the world was done by women, this has been true for millennia, and is still true today.

[dykeulous]

it’s actually crazy to me how tras can acknowledge that woman, in a patriarchal society, is a category. it is an oppressive category that female people need to escape. but at the same time they support the existence of the category. they support leaving the category to enter another one, instead of abolishing the categories altogether. they fail to realize that transness is a medical thing, and that (real) trans people have severe sex dysphoria that makes them miserable. it’s not just being in discomfort at the existence of social & repressive boxes. tras are insanely misogynistic, and this is massive proof for it. they blame feminists for being unhappy at the state of female people in the world, asking them why they don’t just exit it then, or learn to love it. they fail to realize that feminists view womanhood as a social construct to be abolished, a social construct that represses female people. female people can only be free once they are free of both men & the category of woman itself. not to enter another category, but to delete all categories. trans people would not be “socially transitioning”, nor would trans women be entering the category of woman; nor would trans men be entering the category of man, since no such categories would exist. they would simply modify their bodies according to their dysphoria.

tras are misogynistic, fake trans allies. how can they be so blinded to female oppression? so blinded to the point they claim the only solution is either to enter another repressive box, or to learn to get along with the oppression female people go through?

why terfs are so angry